sign in sign up
<<
Home , Deir Alla, Gibeah, Shechem, Tirzah (ancient city)

in The Earliest Israel: Territorial History C 404 ogy of biblical authors— biblical notion of continuity of an “Israel” from to , because this may come from the ideol- reign of the pre-Omride kings, but as explained below, this does not mean automatically consenting to the Dynasty. For reasons which are beyond the scope of the present study I accept the historicity and years of To my dear colleague and friend “ d’Alep,” King of the , with great esteem. thirteenth the in continued tablets the in depicted situation the that assume can one have clear evidence—textual or archaeological—for the rest of the Late , short period of several decades in the fourteenth century BCE. Still, though we do not this territory was sparsely settled. Information in the is restricted to a of the largest territories in the network of city-states in the southern Levant, although 2005). was among the most powerful city-states in ; it ruled over one Na’aman and Finkelstein 1996; (Finkelstein northeast the in River the across and west, Jezreel Valleythe the in to plain sway coastal political the or north, the in in bordering highlands, Samariaterritory the its over ruledthe expand Shechem n period, to Amarna attempted Shechem . of territory the on south the days of the Northern Kingdom at the other. Late Bronze Age city-state of Shechem in the Amarna period at one end and the early endeavor, we have relatively good evidence for the two extremities of the process: the the Late Bronze and early phases of the Iron Age—their extent and identity. For this in sector) northern its in (especially Canaan of highlands central the in formations cess within the local demographic stock, complicates answering both these questions. introduction of groups from outside of Canaan, to understanding it as a long-term pro- viewing it as a unique event in the Late Bronze/Iron I transition, possibly involving the Evidently, the change in scholarly perception regarding the rise of Ancient Israel, from Israel? to Shechem from change territory,name same the the explain mately to how and Shechem of the Amarna period in the fourteenth century BCE covering approxi- a slightly different way: With the nascent Northern Kingdom of the late tenth century name of a territorial entity three centuries later? The second question can be phrased in people in the Merneptah stele in the late thirteenth century BCE transformed into the identi be can that formation decades has left two related questions unanswered: (1) What is the earliest territorial I Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University ntensive research on the emergence the on research ntensive ha 1. I The

the

p By ter 25 key to addressing these issues is a reconstruction of the sequence of territorial “early days of the Northern Kingdom” I refer to the 50 years before the rule of the Omride the of rule the before years 50 the to refer I Kingdom” Northern the of days “early

Highlands fi rst Northern and later Southern. of Canaan fi ed as Israelite? (2) How was the name of a group of group a of name the was How (2) Israelite? as 1 of Ancient Israel in the last several last the in Israel Ancient

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Not for Distribution I , the in embedded tales heroic and traditions royal myths, foundation Northern Jezreel the to expand) Valleyin Gilead the of slopes the and Transjordan. Analyzing to attempted (or expanded and highlands central the of part northern the over ruled Shechem of area the in hub its had which polity a periods, both In Omrides. the of both the west and north. The – polity Gibeon–Gibeah The north. and west the both in lowlands the into expand to attempted and Gilead, the of slopes eastern the and highlands central the of part northern entire the over ruled have must formation this rescue of Jabesh-gilead and the battle of Gilboa, preserve a germ of genuine memory, in Canaan; (3) assuming that 2 Sam 2:9 and early stories in 1 Samuel, such as the than the need to deal with threats posed by this polity to renewed pharaonic interests the exceptional penetration of an Egyptian army into the heart of the highlands other for reason no see area—I this in towns three least at to refers which I, Sheshonq by which I would date to the late eleventh and north of Jerusalem, one seemingly replacing the other. Let me start with the later one, highlands central the in systems territorial different,consecutive two delineate help I period, short relatively a is this Though BCE. century tenth the of half second to to the Iron I in the ca. 200 years between the second half of the twelfth and the middle Egyptian domination and the rise of the Northern Kingdom (the polity)? I refer under system city-state Bronze Late the of collapse the between interval the in area this in situation territorio-political the was remains: What question a BCE, century conceived as the core area of Israel and the (Finkelstein 2017). century BCE, the territory of the kingdom in its early days—as delineated above—was period better resembles the territorial growth of the Northern Kingdom ond thought, the territory of Shechem (and the maneuvers of its rulers) in the Amarna sec- On 2005). Na’aman and (Finkelstein Israel Omride of expansion the and period the in Shechem Amarna Bronze Late effortsof expansion the between similarities to pointed I and Na’aman Nadav ago, years ten over published article an In BCE. the Upper Jordan Valley, the Gilead (Finkelstein 2011). Expansion into the coastal plain, the mountainous , of the highlands north of Jerusalem, the Jezreel Valley, and the western slopes of the the book of Kings, I reached the conclusion that this polity extended over the territory Omride Dynasty. Looking at the archaeological evidence and chronistic materials in fi of city-states under Egyptian hegemony. and much of the twelfth centuries BCE—until the collapse of the Late Bronze system ity elsewhere (Finkelstein 2013, 37–61; in press b), so there is no need to repeat the repeat to need no is there so b), press in 37–61; 2013, (Finkelstein elsewhere ity I. Iron late the covers history its terms, archaeological in later; while short a or century that of middle the in declined and century tenth the clues, mainly a system of forti identi can be plateau. It the in Omrides, the of days the in only came

have rst decades (which I described as the “Tirzah polity”), that is, before the rule of the believe A I Assuming refer to a territorial entity that emerged from the area of the Gibeon–Gibeah the of area the from emerged that entity territorial a to refer few years ago, I dealt with the territorial extent of the Northern Kingdom in its in Kingdom Northern the of territorial extent the with dealt I ago, years few recently suggested that in the days of Jeroboam II, in the that archaeology,that can source extra-biblical an and text, biblical the in clues that the Late Bronze city-state of Shechem prevailed until the late twelfth fi ed according to three pieces of evidence: (1) archaeological evidence:(1) three piecesof to ed according mishor in Moab, and possibly the area of Ramoth-gilead fi ed sites in its core-area; (2) the list of places taken over fi rst half of the tenth century BCE. fi rst half to middle of the ninth century ninth the of middle to half rst fl ourished in the in ourished

I The EarliestIsrael have dealt with this pol- this with dealt have fi rst half of the eighth before fi rst half of half rst the rule 405

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Not for Distribution period of two centuries seems possible. a over memory the of preservation hence Kuntillet Ajrud); and ( century eighth early the in starting evident is Kingdom Northern the in texts literary that goes back to the late eleventh century (Finkelstein 2013, 49–50). Composition of memory a preserve may 7:12) (Jer destruction brutal its and times pre-monarchic in record. The most important evidence for this entity comes from the site of Shiloh. at that time in the area of Shechem. It can be gleaned mainly from the archaeological century BCE. Indeed, a not-as-well documented territorial entity seems to have existed Late Bronze–Iron IIA sequence is the early Iron I, in the late twelfth and the eleventh of Shechem–Tirzah–. I will return to this issue later. area the from ruled were which highlands, central the of part northern the in entities the location of its hub in the area of Gibeon, to differ from other Bronze and Iron Age detailed arguments here. For the current discussion, I would only note an anomaly— 406 seems to better fit a Yahwistic tradition (Jer 7: 12), in Finkelstein in press a. excavations at Shiloh throw further, important light on the subject discussed storage study.for present used the probably in were that buildings I Iron Additional as early as the late twelfth century. This means that Shiloh prospered during the eleventh century BCE, perhaps starting 26). 2007, al. et (Sharon BCE century eleventh the of half second the in Shiloh of results for samples taken from the destruction layer provide a date for the devastation Iron I, best manifested by Stratum VIA at Megiddo—Arie 2006; 2013). Radiocarbon etzky 2006), that is, before the latest phase of the period (in the latter I refer to the late the destruction layer can be ascribed to the early- to mid-Iron I (Finkelstein and Pias- densely inhabited town (Finkelstein 1993). trative function of the site, probably as an elaborate cult place, rather than a common, people living in the region around it. These a habitation quarters. In the Late Bronze Age, the site was apparently not inhabited, but for evidence no was there too, case, this In 374–77). 1993, (Finkelstein rooms these earthen and wall, support stone peripheral functioned as revetment, outside of it, storage rooms adjacent to the inner side of the tured a massive stone-constructed support wall on its periphery, earthen glacis, which of the site in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. In the Middle Bronze III Shiloh fea- to have been ca. one hectare (Finkelstein 1993, 384). buildings. Based on the results of the excavations I estimated the size of the Iron I site habitation of remains reveal not did digs two 1993). The (Finkelstein places other in unearthed on the upper, western slope of the mound, and stone-built silos were found I. Iron the in site the of nature tive administra- the for evidence 1980s—revealed early the in there work own my and favissa in the northeastern side of the mound testi Accepting see a different scenario, emphasizing the existence of an Iron IIA cult place at the site, which site, IIAthe Iron at an place of cult existence the emphasizing different scenario, a see 2. Recent These Iron In Past

But order to understand the nature of Iron I Shiloh, one needs to look at the character I Shiloh came to an end in a excavations at Shiloh—both the Danish dig in the late 1920s and early 1930s early and 1920s late the in dig Danish the Shiloh—both at excavations Israel Finkelstein data led me to suggest that the biblical tradition on the importance of Shiloh the existence of this entity, the only missing temporal link left in the in left link entity,temporal this missing of only existence the the

fi A erce con set of well-built, pillared storage houses were houses storage pillared well-built, of set 2 fi fi nds shed light on the long-term adminis- lls laid on the slope on the inner side of side inner the on slope the on laid lls fl agration. The pottery assemblage from fi es to cultic activity, probably by

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Not for Distribution ter possibility. This means that an Iron I territorial entity that existed in the highlands highlands the in existed that entity territorial possibility.I ter Iron an that means This lat the to sites—point neighboring at layers destruction logic—big sheer 2006). The radiocarbon for absolute chronology) destruction of Shiloh V (Finkelstein and Piasetzky and chronology relative for (pottery-wise well-dated the earlier,to slightly parallel in tation occurred in the end phase of the Iron I, around the middle of the tenth century, or I. 11.8:2, 11.12:3 respectively). Megiddo (Finkelstein, Zimhoni, and Kafri 2000, Figs. 11.13:7, 11.16:3 and Figs. 11.3:8, Stratum VIAin parallels have they atI; Iron late the of typical are 11:11]) Fig. 1969: Two of the vessels (idem: Pl. VI:159 and Pl. VIII:179 [for the latter, see also Kerkhof vessels found by the Austro-German expedition in 1913–14 (Horn and Moulds 1969). ofcollection the from comes I Iron the in Shechem of occupation the for evidence in the Leiden collection (e.g., Kerkhof 1969: Figs. 9:10, 29–32; 21:45, 47). Additional Shiloh V.as such period, the of and Izbet Sartah III, while they do appear in strata representing the later phases note that rims with reed impressions have not been found at early Iron I sites, such as jars (Boraas 1986: Fig. 5:9–10; 1999, Fig. 3:1) can be dated any time in the Iron I, but of the cooking-pots (Boraas 1986: Fig. 1:11, 12; 1999, Fig. 10:1, 11:4). The collared rim I. Iron the of phase later a to belong which dating the stratum (in fact, its destruction) are the latest ones in the two assemblages, I. Iron and II–III Bronze Late the both in placed be Bronze can Late others the while to Age, bowls—date and them—cooking-pots from only two loci of this stratum have been published (Boraas 1986; 1999). Some of far,sherds Thus 2006). Finkelstein 223; 221, 213–15, 199–200, 2002, Campbell 72; north of Shiloh. that the center of power was located at Shechem—only 17 km as the crow be would answer logical the periods, both For Shiloh. III Bronze Middle regarding asked be can question same The served? it ruler the of seat the was Where words: territorial entity that it served, and where was the hub of this polity located? In other raison d’être was probably a cult place on the summit. The question is: What was the cal tradition and long-term history of the site (Middle Bronze to Iron I), its focus and I habitation site in the highlands. a by destroyed destroyed in a .a-shiloh.co.il/24 were unearthed close to the surface in the southeastern sector of the site (http://www storage, habitation or both. by devastated also facilities; that the Iron I site was bigger than previously estimated, with more extensive storage with the one traced in past excavations on the western slope of the mound. This means

W I The W excavations in the southwestern sector of the mound unearthed Iron I structures that were that structures I Iron unearthed mound the of sector southwestern the in excavations 3. ith the limited number of ceramic items published, it is dif am inclined to date the destruction of Stratum XI to an advanced phase of the Iron

e are dealing, then, with a large administrative center.largeadministrative a with then, dealing, Toare bibli- e the from judge Recent Iron I settlement at Shechem is represented by Stratum XI, which was which XI, Stratum by represented is Shechem at settlement I Iron 3 it could have reached up to 2.5 hectares, much larger than the average Iron fi fi fi erce con re. From the preliminary report (Gat 2015) it is not clear whether they were used for used were they whether clear not is it 2015) (Gat report preliminary the From re. erce 96). From the published pictures, they too seem to have been have to seem too they pictures, published the From 96). fi re that left a thick accumulation of debris (Toombsdebris of accumulation 70, thick 1979, a left that re fl agration. Evidently, this destruction must be contemporary

The same holds true for several sherds and vessels and sherds several for true holds same

This is clearly seen in the shape of some of shape the in seen clearly is

Evidently The EarliestIsrael , the important items for items important the , fi cult to say if the devas- fl ies to the 407 - ​

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Not for Distribution control over its territory. If one is looking for a speci a territory.for its looking over is control one If antiquity—before the Northern Kingdom with its well-organized administration and the city.It depicts between two is whether it is based on a memory of a historical event. The story deals with a struggle ing in the early eighth century (Finkelstein 2016). Regarding the old tale, the question nature (recently Na’aman 2011; Irwin 2012), the former seemingly committed to writ- ter too one can distinguish between an old tale and later additions, mostly polemic in comes to mind in this connection. Similar to the heroic stories in Judges, in this chap- 9 highlands. The Judges the in in story upheavals complicated) more (or doms; Finkelstein 2018; in press b). king- Hebrew two the to refer (I Shechem and highlands—Jerusalem the in entities the campaign led to the rise of new dynasties in the two traditional hubs of territorial about the decline of the Gibeon–Gibeah polity. Arrangements imposed by Egypt after brought Dynasty,which 22nd highlands, the the into campaign military a conducted Consequently,ofDynasties. founder 22nd theearly andI, 21stSheshonq late the of in the late Iron I. disruption between the periods), destroyed and replaced by the Gibeon–Gibeah entity centered at Shechem in the Late Bronze and the early to middle Iron I (with or without polity a see would I perspective long-term in highlands. scenario, this to According ity, took over its territory, and replaced it as the ruler of the northern part of the central could speculate that the Gibeon–Gibeah territorial entity destroyed the Shechem pol- One Shechem. traditional the from away formation Gibeon–Gibeah the of power of seat the of location the in anomaly the explain formation. also territorial would This Gibeon–Gibeah nearby the of rise and polity Shechem–Shiloh the of fall poraneous South contem the between madearchaeology, Americanbe probably would link a to answer this riddle the Iron Age—was in of end the and Bronze Middle the of end the between years thousand the in highlands signi most catastrophe—the BCE. This century eleventh late the in sometime event single a in devastated utterly was Shechem–Shiloh around 408 viable option. This does not necessarily stand in contradiction to the theory regarding a is XI Shechem of destruction the the in with layer story old Abimelech the of tion to the late polemic layer in the story (Finkelstein 2016). One way or another, an equa- from the Ga‘al episode, and the Migdal Shechem and Thebez episodes seem to belong separated and Thebez. be Shechem Yet,cannot Migdal Shechem of destruction the of an Israelite savior, which can be found in the three confrontations—with Shechem, description a and Ga‘al) with struggle (the leader military Canaanite a as Abimelech with tradition Northern a accounts: antithetic separate, two of made is story old the re may events the of portrayal this 235; 2011, Oeste (also territory highlander) rural is, (that “Israelite” of midst the in located was that town late-“Canaanite” Shechem—a tale, attention should be given to the massive destruction of Stratum XI at Shechem. fl Who It St ect the ideology of the centuries-later author). De Castelbajac (2001) proposed that ill, the destruction of Shechem and Shiloh could have been the result of other of result the been have could Shiloh and Shechem of destruction the ill, is possible that Abimelech was described as a deliverer from oppression by oppression from deliverer a as described was that Abimelech possible is could be the destroyer of the Iron I Shechem entity? There is not enough data Israel Finkelstein apiru groups over the rule of Shechem and ends with the destruction of

The ambianceapiru 2011), whichtesti (Reviv1966;Na’aman fi fl growth growth of the latter posed a threat to the rising interests of Egypt rmly. Had this been a question posed in pre-Columbian Meso- or icted on both the hub of this entity and its important cult center. fi c historical event behind this behind event historical c fi cant known thus far in the in far thus known cant fi es toits -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Not for Distribution ern author in the which represent the realities and needs of the biblical authors—both a possible North- the name Israel for a polity in approximately the same territory? words: When was the territorial-name Shechem, designating a city-state, replaced by Can the Shechem–Shiloh polity of the Iron I be identi caused the destruction of the city, which opened the way for a Gibeon–Gibeah takeover. a Gibeon–Gibeah takeover of the region; internal strife in the Shechem area could have Eben-ezer (1 Sam 4). of battle the about story the in “Israel” to reference the for true holds same a. The press in Finkelstein, 1 17:2; Josh 26:31; (Num genealogies with Manasseh Israel the name of the Asriel equate to bibliography) Lemaire’snote with should (1973, One proposal 1985). Edelman and (Ahlström highlands central the in Merneptah’sterms identify general who in those Israel with side would logic Long-term help. of be not Stele, as far as I can judge the three cities mentioned in the inscription and the structure of the hymn can- the highlands comes from the terminology of modern research rather than realities of the past. in the old layer in the Abimelech story). This would should probably be viewed as another Shechem city-state (possibly portrayed as such sidering that both polities were centered at Shechem, the Iron I Shechem–Shiloh polity Yet, in view of the chronological and territorial continuity in this transition, and con- cally, it was the latter that eventually brought about the rise of the Hebrew kingdoms. Late Bronze to a wave of new settlements in the Iron I. lar (though gradual) settlement transformation, from a depleted rural landscape in the geographic extent of the territorial formations under discussion. similar to close Bronze–Iron with Late and entire sequence, the Age in stock lation due attention to demographic oscillations, we are dealing with the same, local popu- later.and century dif seventh second late The the in author(s) mistic “ all shed must one transformation, name Shechem/Israel the of question the line with my transition could have happened in any of the following disruptions in the highlands: of Shechem (for the archaeology, see Porat 1968, Site 108). 1997, 618). Ostracon 42 refers to As(h)eret, possibly the village of Asira el-Qibliya, 7 km to the southwest Shechem (for the archaeology of the site, see Porat 1968, Site 158; Finkelstein, Lederman, and Bunimovitz south of Shechem. Ostracon 48 mentions Yashub, most likely the village of Yasuf 12 km south-southwest of in the lowlands (New Canaan in Finkelstein 2003). also culture material BCE second-millennium featuring system city-states the of ity

Chr 5. 4. The There • • rise of the • Iron I Shechem–Shiloh polity on the ruins (?) of the Late Bronze • In 6.

7:14) and Samaria Ostraca. In the latter, Asriel is associated with two villages that are probably located

The The entity in the late eleventh century; The city-state ca. 1100 BCE; The The Needless The Late Bronze/Iron I transition in the highlands was characterized by a spectacu- location of the early group of people named Israel remains a riddle. Regarding the Merneptah the Regarding riddle. a remains Israel named people of group early the of location Yahwistic Ark tradition may refer to an Iron IIA (rather than Iron I) shrine at Shiloh—see at shrine I) Iron than IIA(rather Iron an to Yahwisticrefer may tradition Ark are two dif two are destruction of the Shechem–Shiloh polity and the rise of the Gibeon–Gibeah rise of the Omride Dynasty in the early ninth century BCE. emergence of the “Tirzah polity” in the middle of the tenth century BCE; to say, the distinction between “city-state” and “territorial entity” for the same territory in fi rst half of the eighth century (Finkelstein 2017) and the Deuterono- territorialgeschichtliche reconstruction above, the Shechem/Israel fi culties here. culties The fi rst is seemingly obvious: in order to answer to order in obvious: seemingly is rst 6 fi fi t the Late Bronze–Iron ed as the earliest Israel? In other

Indeed, The EarliestIsrael 4 at least demographi- fi culty: with all with culty:

I continu- fi lters 409 ” 5

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Not for Distribution when they were committed to writing in the Northern Kingdom in the stories old the Israel. to introduced Yet,been have could “Israel” name the too here named entity an or people of group a to Gilboa)—refer of Battle the also (possibly old, Saul Northern royal tradition—the rescue of Jabesh and the Battle of Michmash chronistic account (1 Kgs 12:25), says that Jeroboam I built Shechem built I Jeroboam that says 12:25), Kgs (1 account chronistic or whether it was located at Tirzah from the outset. The book of Kings, possibly in a texts in Kings if the seat of Jeroboam in the suf not is It Israelite. as Bible the in to referred kings whether this had already been the name of the polity that was ruled by the pre-Omride wonder can One III. Shalmaneser of Inscription Kurkh the in Israelite” as “Ahab of eighth century BCE (Finkelstein 2017), if not later. the Gibeon–Gibeah polity is dif called for parting with the name Shechem. Whether the name Israel was introduced for the change of the center of power from Shechem to the Gibeon–Gibeah area probably Hence, below). (see time that at site the at gap occupational an been have to seems ( I Iron late the in Shechem at cen- eleventh (late I mid-Iron the in Shechem I Iron of devastation dramatic centered polity territorial a for indication textual or state. archaeological no is There city- second-millennium important this of act closing the as considered be can tury) 410

second is the expansion to new areas that have never been governed by rulers from the tenth century BCE is dif tions of Bronze Age Shechem. The archaeology of Shechem in the second half of the tradi- and aristocracy old the from entity new the distance to attempt an as seen be stemmed from the city’s cultic importance, while the transfer of power to Tirzah may (14:17) that he later moved to Tirzah. It then speci the region: the of history the in Dynasty.changes Omride major the two of signals rise datum This be dated before the middle of the tenth century. apparently features Iron IIA forms (Boling and Campbell 1987, 265) and hence cannot tury, a Drew-McCormick excavations. If Stratum XI was destroyed in the late eleventh cen- the in (12:25), belong to the original Jeroboam royal tradition, which was composed ), as well as the reference to his building activity at Shechem and possibly with Jeroboam replaced author Deuteronomistic a where 12:1, Kgs (1 Shechem at the new polity was not much different from that of the old one. Shechem for a territorial formation ruled from Tirzah, even if the territorial extent of during his reign or located his seat there from the outset, there is no logic in the name city-state. old the Yet,of that as same the to Tirzahbeen moved Jeroboam whether seat of Jeroboam been located at Shechem, the territorial name of his polity could have of the Northern Kingdom starting in the days of Baasha (15:21, 33; 16:6). Had the The this account may refer to the building activities of Jeroboam II. 7. The T In

he last possible scenario for the introduction of the territorial name Israel is the is Israel name territorial the of introduction the for scenario possible last he But a previous work (Finkelstein 2017) I suggested that Jeroboam’scoronation that suggested I 2017) (Finkelstein work previous a

fi short fi rst half of the eighth century BCE. The coronation at Shechem could have could Shechem at coronation BCE. The century eighth the of half rst rst extra-biblical reference to the Northern Kingdom as Israel is the mention Israel Finkelstein occupational gap followed (in the late Iron I), as the pottery of Stratum X fi rst is the move of the seat of power to the new capital at Samaria; the fi cult to assess without full publication of the fi fi rst half of the tenth century BCE), and indeed there indeed and BCE), century tenth the of half rst cult to say. Two episodes in what I consider to be the fi rst years of his rule was set at Shechem fi cally mentions Tirzah as the capital fi ciently clear from chronistic from clear ciently 7 fi but also hints also but fi rst half of the nds from the fi rst

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Not for Distribution Boling, R. ———. 2013. “The Late Bronze III and Iron I Pottery: Levels K-6, M-6, M-5, M-4 and H-9.” the tenth century BCE. late eleventh/early tenth century, or with the rise of the Tirzah polity in the middle of the change should best be identi Shechem. Thus as I Iron the of polity Shechem–Shiloh the to refer and risk the take formation in this region. There is no clear-cut answer to this question; even so, I will territorial a for Israel name the to city-state a for Shechem name the from transition the for possibilities temporal four with dealt then I Shiloh. at place cult elaborate an early-to-mid-Iron I (eleventh century BCE) polity, which had its hub at Shechem and an to Dynasty.given Omride was the emphasis of Special Israel to period Amarna the of Shechem from Canaan of highlands central the of part northern the in existed than, say, Samaria) with the transfer of the capital? rather Israel, (to name-change a be there should why lowlands), the in city-states of North can be described as a territorial kingdom from its early days (with the takeover Valley,the if But Gilead. the of slopes in western Transjordanareas the and beyond northern part of the central highlands—the mountainous Galilee, the northern Jordan Ahlstr B Campbell, E. Boraas, R. ———. 1986. “Iron Age Ceramics at Balatah: A Preliminary Investigation.” Pages 249– Arie, E. 2006. “The Iron Age I Pottery: Levels K-5 and K-4 and an Intra-site Spatial Analysis ———. 2003. “City States and States: Polity Dynamics in the 10th–9th Centuries B.C.E.” ———. 1996. “The Territorio-Political System of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.” Finkelstein, I. 1993. “The History and Archaeology of Shiloh from the Middle Bronze Age II De Castelbajac, I. 2001. “Histoire de la rédaction de Juges IX: une solution.” ibliography D. University 31. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Pages 475–667 in Archaeology. of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 24. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in T Scholars Press. Studies in Honor of GeorgeStudies inHonor M. Edited by T. 63 in Edited by L. 72 in Edited by I. of the Pottery from Stratum VIA.” Pages 191–298 in and theirNeighbors. Edited by W. Pages 75–83 in 221–55. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. to Iron Age II.” Pages 371–93 in tah Vol. 1: Text. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. I.

o summarize, in this article, I surveyed the sequence of territorial entities that entities territorial of sequence the surveyed I article, this in summarize, o Finkelstein.

ö Ussishkin, ., and D. m, G. The Archaeology ofJordan andOtherStudiesPresented toSiegfried H. Archaeology andBiblical Interpretation: EssaysinMemoryofD.

G., S.

1999. “Shechem Pottery—Locus14.132.” Pages 18–27 in F W and E. . 2002.

Finkelstein,

L. G. and E. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 10. Symbiosis, SymbolismandthePower ofthePast:Canaan, Ancient Israel, Geraty and L. Perdue, L.

Megiddo V: The 2004–2008 Seasons. Edited by I. F Shechem III:TheStratigraphyand Architecture ofShechem/Tell Bala- . Campbell. 1987. “Jeroboam and Rehoboam at Shechem.” Pages 259–

H.

Edelman. Cline. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv D.

E.

Ussishkin,

Toombs, and G. G.

Landes. Edited by S. 1985. “Merneptah’s Israel.” fi Shiloh: The Archaeology ofaBiblical Site. Edited by Herr. Berrien Springs: Andrews University. ed with the rise of the Gibeon–Gibeah polity in the

G. Dever and S. and B.

Halpern. L. Johnson. Atlanta: John Knox.

Gitin.

Megiddo IV: The 1998–2002 Seasons. L. Monograph Series of the Institute Cook and S. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. JNES 44: 59–61. The EarliestIsrael On theWay toNineveh:

Finkelstein, C.

Winter. Atlanta: Glenn Rose. VT 51: 166–85.

Horn. UF 28: 411

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Not for Distribution Finkelstein, I., and E. Finkelstein, I., and N. Finkelstein, I., Z. ———. In press b. “Saul and Highlands of Benjamin Update: The Role of Jerusalem.” ———. In press a. “Jeroboam II’s Temples.” ———. 2006. “Shechem in the Late Bronze Age.” Pages 349–56 in 412 Horn, S. Gat, O. 2015. “Excavations in Area J2 in the Southwest of Tel Shiloh: A Renewed Look at the Finkelstein, I., O. ———. 2018. “Jerusalem and the Benjamin Plateau in the Early Phases of the Iron Age: ———. 2017. “A Corpus of North Israelite Texts in the Days of Jeroboam II?” ———. 2016. “Comments on the Abimelech Story in Judges 9.” ———. 2013: ———. 2011. “Stages in the Territorial Expansion of the Northern Kingdom.” Irwin, B. Toombs, L. Sharon, I., A. Oeste, G. Porat, Y. 1968. “Inventory of Sites, Samaria Survey II.” Unpublished Report, the Israel Antiq- Kerkhof, V. Reviv, H. 1966. “The Government of Shechem in the el-Amarna Period and in the Days of Na’aman, N. 2011. “A Hidden Anti-Samaritan Polemic in the Story of Abimelech and Lemaire, A. 1973. “Asriel, Israel Šr’l, et l’origine de la confederation Israelite.” Northern Kingdom of Israel.” Aviv University 14. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Southern SamariaSurvey, theSites. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel In O. in Areas F, K and H and Their Stratigraphic and Chronological Implications.” Pages 244–324 Anchors, Pottery Phases and the Shoshenq I Campaign.” 35–58 (Hebrew). Findings from Middle Bronze Age II and Iron I.” Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. B. Honour of ManfredHonour Bietak A 262–89. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Andrews UniversitySeminaryStudies 7: 17–46. Oriental Research. Oriental Research (1900–1975). Edited by F. sia CelebratingtheSeventy-Fifth Anniversary oftheFounding American Schoolsof of Judges.” uities Authority. Jerusalem. Iron Age Dating Project in Israel: Supporting a Low Chronology.” Abimelech.” Rise and Demise in Judges 9. New York: T&T Clark. den in Leiden.” Shechem (Judges 9).” 239–43.

Dif

Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons. Edited by I. Saul andBenjamin Halpern. Ser

ferent Scenario.”

H.,

P gi, and K. K. Israel Finkelstein . 2012. “Not Just any King: Abimelech, the Northern Monarchy, and the Final Form

E. I. and L. 2011. Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, andtheRighttoRule:Windows on Abimelech’s

Gilboa, The Forgotten Kingdom:The Archaeology andHistoryofNorthernIsrael. 1969. “Catalogue of the Shechem Collection in the Rijksmuseum van Oudhe- 1979. “Shechem: Problems in the Early Israelite Era.” Pages 69–83 in JBL 131: 443–54. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 18. Tel IEJ 16: 252–57.

Lederman, Zimhoni,

Oudheidkundige Mededelingen

G. W

T. Piasetzky eingart. Na’aman. Moulds. 1969. “Pottery from Shechem Excavated 1913 and 1914.”

A. inBiblical and Archaeological Perspective. Edited by J. BZ 55: 1–20. ZDPV 134: 190–95. J. and A.

and S. Jull, . Edited by E. . 2006. “The Iron I–IIA in the Highlands and Beyond: 2005. “Shechem of the Amarna Period and the Rise of the IEJ and E.

Kafri.

Bunimovitz. 55: 172–93.

Boaretto. 2000. “The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages from

Czerny ZAW

M. 1997. . 2007. “Report on the First Stage of the 50: 28–109. Cross. Cambridge: American Schools of et al. Leuven: Peeters. andSamariaResearch Studies24: Highlands ofManyCultures: The

Finkelstein, Levant 38: 45–61. UF 46: 69–84. Timelines: Studiesin D. Radiocarbon 49: 1–46.

Ussishkin, VT 61: 227–42. HBAI VT 23:

Kraus, and Sympo- 6: 14 C

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Not for Distribution